Fractal Networks LLC v. Amantya Technologies, Inc.
Infringement action filed 31 Jan 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 10 Jun 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10694399B1US10637142B1
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-00097
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 31 Jan 2025 – 10 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 495 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Cellular system · Computing system
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Cellular system
A system includes a cellular transceiver to communicate with a predetermined target; one or more antennas coupled to the 5G transceiver each electrically or mechanically steerable to the predetermined target; a processor to control a directionality of the one or more antennas in communication with the predetermined target; and an edge processing module coupled to the processor and the one or more antennas to provide low-latency computation for the predetermined target.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 23 Jun 2020
- Est. expiry
- 2 Sep 2039
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- H04M1/00H04B7/06H04W16/28H04W4/40H01Q3/20G06N3/08G06N3/04H04W88/08H01Q1/02
- Prosecution counsel
- PATENT PC
- Examiner
- GONZALES, APRIL G
Computing system
A system includes a transceiver to communicate with a predetermined target; one or more antennas coupled to the transceiver each electrically or mechanically steerable to the predetermined target; and an edge processing module coupled to the transceiver and one or more antennas to provide low-latency computation for the predetermined target.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 28 Apr 2020
- Est. expiry
- 7 May 2039
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- H01Q3/46G06N3/08G06N3/04H04W4/40H01Q1/24G10L25/51F21S8/08H01Q1/44H01Q21/28H04B17/309H04L29/08G06K9/00F21W131/103
- Prosecution counsel
- PATENT PC
- Examiner
- NGUYEN, HOANG V
Parties of record
Fractal Networks LLC
- Core tech
- H04M1/00H04B7/06H04W16/28H04W4/40
- Counsel
- Isaac Phillip Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Amantya Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Fractal Networks LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Fractal Networks LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 7.) In the Motion, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned case against Defendant Amantya Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”) without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case between Plaintiff and Defendant not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the abovecaptioned case as no parties or claims remain.”
Case 2:25-cv-00097 · E.D. Tex. · closed 10 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:25-cv-00097?
2:25-cv-00097 is a patent infringement action brought by Fractal Networks LLC against Amantya Technologies, Inc., filed on 31 Jan 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 10 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:25-cv-00097?
US10694399B1 (“Cellular system”), assigned to FRACTAL NETWORKS LLC, currently inactive; US10637142B1 (“Computing system”), assigned to FRACTAL NETWORKS LLC, currently active. The record also lists Cellular system and Computing system.
How was case 2:25-cv-00097 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Fractal Networks LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 7.) In the Motion, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned case against Defendant Amantya Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”) without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant in
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 2:25-cv-00097 take?
495 calendar days, from filing on 31 Jan 2025 to closure on 10 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-00097?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Fractal Networks.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-00097 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.